Finished reading Believer’s Baptism:
- A rather extensive definition of the traditional Baptist argument is capitulated.
- So too a fair presentation is made of the standard Paedoist rationale.
- Neither of which I personally believe to entirely suffice.
- As for the Baptist…there seems to be a preoccupation with relating New Covenant membership and election, all the while never once mentioning (that I can recall) the distinction between the New and Eternal covenants, resulting in a denial of clear apostolic thought regarding the reality of false brethren/teachers/prophets/apostles being within the fold, hence a mixed people, which in turn relates to their strained definition of what the church is and how to maintain its purity by determining at what age a believer ought to be baptized.
- As for the Paedoist…there’s the preoccupation with relating the Abrahamic covenant entirely with the New, as if there wasn’t in Christ’s fulfillment of the former sufficient cause for seeing the latter as defining the people under it in a significantly different manner, wherein the principle of covenant-by-pedigree is absolved.